Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!

Because you won't

Don't use the undo feature to question the status quo regardless of what you think of it. If you have questions then YOU make a talk page, don't tell others to, you're not above this. To answer your question, yes there is precedent and that is the conclusion we came to partly because of you (and others like you) in fact. The clearly defined rule of zero speculative material stems from a time when you and some others banded together to discuss whether Aer really was Macha or not, even after it was shown she wasn't but you guys thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

And therein lies the issue, what is and isn't worth mentioning. Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't us and works in a different manner) have a very strong rule regarding notability/importance. For this wiki it remains an unwritten guideline of sorts (again, one that was decided upon by several members including current staff). Don't write dumb/pointless/inane things on the wiki. So yes, to a certain degree that is open to interpretation. Common sense should dictate what is and what isn't important in the context of a game guide. This shouldn't even be an issue but certain users seem to think that Cichol's favourite brand of cologne is important, as opposed to things that are actually notable such as how to participate in the latest event. You once said something along the lines of "All information is important". No, that is not what was decided.

Members have since acted to remove "detritus" and with some zeal at that. But at this stage if you don't like this then what you need to be doing is not being uncooperative and playing mod. If you think something's worth keeping, fine. But you're going to have to present a convincing argument why editors should be wasting time on trivial matters when all good sense of design and quality indicates otherwise.

I would like to begin by saying I did not claim the information in question on the Professor J page is worthy or not, that'd be for a thread. A thread that you are in obligation to make as it is you who is trying to change the page. I can make one for you if you like. I have taken the time to reeducate myself on this wiki's policy.

First of all

“

If a disagreement occurs, a reversion may happen. You must respect this reversion, even if done by another user, and prefer to discuss the issue in the talk page for that page.

„

I requested that you continue the discussion on the page in questions' talk page. I would like to hear your argument, and might even agree. I am not strongly in favor of keeping or removing the line. I am against removing things without due process.

Furthermore, I am not taking the role of a mod. I am following the wiki policy, the guidelines that we are all expected to follow. (And before anyone questions whether I or Mystic have the right to revert eachother's edits, there is nothing stating otherwise. Only that we may not undo mod's edits.)

“

If an administrator or moderator (collectively considered moderators) reverts a contribution or makes an edit as a deciding factor in a tensioned discussion, argument, issue, or etc. it is an offense to revert it. These are to be considered final judgments and an explicit end to the argument. If one takes further issue it must be presented as an appeal to the moderator on that moderator's talk page.

„

So what should really be discussed? First of all, what is the wiki's policy on removal? All I found is:

“

In main spaces you may contribute only content. This includes corrections to content in meaning, form, and lexico-grammatical ways. You may not completely remove content from a page that is in accordance with our policy, however this does not prevent you from presenting the data in a different or more summarized way so long as all the content is still represented in some way.

„

There is no alleyway for content to be removed, as far as I see it in these guidelines, unless something is considered not to be content (or a moderator says so because they have the final say).

Instead of quesitoning what I'm doing, you should be making a thread in Professor J's talk page argueing whether that line of text is considered content. The policy says:

“

Textual content is text written on the wiki within the main namespaces (or also just "spaces") of the wiki. Image content is an image displayed on the wiki within the main namespaces. Video content are videos displayed on the wiki within the main namespaces. Audio content is not currently supported individually by the wiki and would instead be displayed in a video form.

„

It goes into further detail on what each type of content is. The line on the Professor J page most clearly matches descriptive content.

“

Descriptive content is content such that it describes an object, event, place, NPC, plot, ability, concept, or process within the game. Description is factual in nature and does not use subjective terms or subject matters such as, but not limited to, quality of appearance. It is generally done in words rather than numbers. Descriptions are considered claims of facts present in Mabinogi that should be indisputable. If you are not 100% certain of the authenticity of a claim, seek feedback in the talk space of the relevant page.

„

The Professor J page says:

“

In Iria II: Episode 1, when the Aces are requested to deliver relief supplies, Professor J holds onto them as he did not trust Merlin. Strangely, upon arrival at the delivery point, all characters and the description of Episode 2 state that Merlin had been carrying and lost the supplies.

„

This is factual. It describes the plot. You were not questioning the authenticity of the claim. There is no precedent in the policy, as far as I see it, that allows non-moderators to remove content. You can only improve on it, or start a discussion on it. In the case of improving on it, the only thing, to me, that seems opinionated in the post is the word "strangely", which can better phrased with the word "however".

It's not that there's no alleyway for content to be removed but it certainly should be discussed, yes. This whole thing falls mostly under style I think (tho Blargel's argument is valid too, I hadn't thought about it). I want style to be discussed among users even tho moderators can define it. It's ill defined though and it's not something I can work too well into policy. I can try to work on a page about removal, though, that can touch on things like style and invalidity. It might be worth doing.

As much as you are right about the reversion policy the point of the policy is to stop reversion wars, so, I think if you're put in a position to revert again because someone's not listening, it may be better to start the discussion thread yourself.

(EDIT: To advertise fairness, I did discuss this with Mystickskye in private as well.)

That would actually help. It's not exactly required by the policy right now, but I feel like we should talk about things like these (and things unlike these) before removing them. Afterwards we can set up a sort of horizontal stare decisis and make people appeal to have content on the pages, rather than appeal to take them off (since that seems to be what people like Mystic seem to think is happening), but there should at least be a day's worth of discussion before we rush to delete things that have no clearly defined precedent. (And I would like to be linked to the discussion Mystic says sets the precedent.)

For this particular case, I agree with Mystickskye. Although the content in question is technically following the policy, it has nearly no value. The main focus isn't even the Professor J character; it's more about a consistency mistake in the story. Yes, there's nothing about what kind of content does not belong on the wiki. That's because that sort of thing is, admittedly, fairly subjective. At this time, the judgments are being made at the discretion of the moderators who encounter the content in question. As such, I'm going to remove that trivia.

EDIT: The other trivia on that page is questionably relevant... I'm going to leave it for now, but it's kinda bugging me.

It not pertaining specifically to Professor J himself is a good argument. Wouldn't it be better in this case to move it to a more relevant page then? Such as the pages specifically made for storyline? Such as Mabinogi Storyline Recap.

Looking over the edits going on the page, it's nothing more than a continuity error, if anything. I don't see the point of it being on J's page, let alone anywhere else. Could be caused by something lost in translation. The recap page isn't a good place for it either. That storyline recap is due for an overhaul, and not to mention the varying nature of choices (I'm looking at you G15) does not really help matters in making a "canonical" storyline.

I'm going to have to side with Mystick and Blargy on this one. As much as it follows policy, there's little value in such a thing.

As much as it may be of little value, fun little tidbits such as those are still part of a story. That's why they're in the TRIVIA section rather than the MAIN STORY. You guys are making way too much a fuss over this. If it's canon and mentioned by official sources, it's worth putting under trivia. Believe it or not, people do enjoy such little things and actually do look on wikis for those.

So for the love of everyone's sanity, please just drop this. All of you. As long as it's official, the aforementioned information deserves to be there as much as the main content.

You're right it on it not being Kitty's call, but I don't believe any of us knows the majority opinion. For that, I'd suggest a survey, on both Mabinogi World Forums and Mabination Forums, to see the results. That is, if such results would be taken into consideration at all. Since, as you said, you removed it because you judged it ill fit to be on the wiki, and that it is currently solely based on moderator judgement. And Mikaya's final sentiment was that it didn't have anywhere to go and that she considers it of little value. Would you like to explore whether people actually consider it valuable? I think it'd be a healthy exercise to see what viewers like and don't like. Maybe you could get some helpful feedback for other things while you're at it.

I'd definitely be interested in the results of such a survey except that I think it'd be best if the results were from regular users of the wiki, even the unregistered ones. I dunno how the heck we'd get those unregistered users to take it though...

We could set a banner on the front page/on the top of the pages, encourage people to make accounts (last I remember the account making process wasn't difficult), and keep such a discussion/survey up for 1~3 weeks. Qualitative results would be preferable to quantitative in my opinion, but both would work. I still think we should cover multiple websites for a higher participant pool, though.

The storyline page sounds like it would be perfect for "plot holes" or story inconsistencies. Why wouldn't it be a good place for it?

Just because a page is incomplete doesn't mean you can't add minor details to it. The policy says:

“

However, you are and cannot be held responsible for completeness; it is the job of the community at large to strive for completeness.

„

and also

“

You may not completely remove content from a page that is in accordance with our policy, however this does not prevent you from presenting the data in a different or more summarized way so long as all the content is still represented in some way.

„

It seems like it'd be better to have the content somewhere, even in a page that's already messy, and personally improve on it, or improve on it as a community.

The point of a recap is to super-simplify/summarize the story from the content given. This does not include minor details, and as such, wouldn't really fit in. If you're going to add minor details to something that should be straight forward and simple, then it's not really much of a recap.

That is a good point. What if I began working on more detailed pages for individual storylines? I am willing to take responsibility, if you think in such a scenario these plot inconsistencies would have a place.

I'm fine with anyone handling it. If you need references towards official scripts, there's a completed script for Generation 1, and partially completed scripts for Generation 2, and for whatever reason, Generation 19.

You can also use this god forsaken project that was too much for me to handle, as I've paraphrased everything based on the actual in-game scripts (With some exaggerations...). There are a lot of gaps, but Generations 7, 8, 17, and Saga I are completed in its most of its entirety, save a few details.

As far as some ground rules:

No Speculations/Theories. Keep everything as true to what is said in-game.

Spoiler Warning at the top (Blargel already said, so just reminding you)

References, if any, should be cited.

I guess you could make a note on what quest(s) are related to the part of the plot of that page or something?

Make less of story page and keep it professional.

I can't think of anything else right now, but yeah, try to use common sense. As far as page names, I'm not entirely sure, but probably make it a subpage of the generation it's relating too? That sounds the easiest for me.

Everything sounds good so far. Subpages sounds like the best solution, either a subpage of each generation's page, or the subpage of a new disambiguation-sort of page that has links to all the others. But I'm not sure what you mean by "Make less of story page and keep it professional."

I'm halfway through Generation 1 on my new character, I'll try and write it from scratch and reference those resources for corrections and for the first part.

Do you guys think there should be a "Storyline" page or something along that line that links to all the individual storylines' pages?

My biggest worry is that I might become too technical. I'm used to programming, and when I do occasionally write, it's like "to achieve this you must do this in this proper order". Which is why I usually avoided editing NPC pages and left it to the likes of you and Infodude. Do you have any advice in that department? How I can make it balanced and professional but not robotic.

I've verified that your edited version increased the size of the page by 3kb. No idea where you got the reduction. You can see the page length in bytes here. Under your edit, the file size increased, so I don't see any warrant in your edit. In addition, you opened a discussion, and then redid your edit anyways before waiting for a proper conclusion.

Removal of that significant amount of data requires discussion, and there is an open discussion on the page.

The banner is clearly saying that more work is required for the Culinary Artist section and that help would be appreciated. Can you justify its removal?

In addition, I don't see the point in these edits, what were you trying to accomplish? I might be able to help if know what the problem is that you're trying to fix..

Was there a reason you removed the 3 parameter from the talent icon page as well?

That's not a significant amount of data, and it can be found in a more appropriate page. Whatever, kid.

The removed banner states that the page is outdated, not "more work is required".

The banner under that already states that more work is required for the page.

The page is not outdated, hence misleading.

If you knew anything about how templates worked, you'd understand the change that the edit made. There was no issue to the template, it simply reduced the size of the template (by about a few bytes, which makes a considerably difference in pages like...cough...Talent...cough...).

If you think the outdated template should be replaced with something else, I suggest replacing it with something less misleading, rather than removing the banner altogether. You can also open a discussion on other banner templates if you feel it necessary to revise them.

I also encourage you to provide evidence for all of your claims.

You were right on the talent icon part, I was mistaken, I didn't see that you moved it to another portion of the page. But I still see no purpose to it, if anything all you did was add an extra character.

Splitting the page into multiple pages does not help in the aim to reduce the page sizes (unless you don't intend on re-including those new subpages into the main page) so that the Hero Talent Tables can be included in the Talents page.

I have been patient but now it seems you guys are being plain unreasonable just to create conflict. Merlin is to New Beginnings as Aces is to Ultimate Anime Summer. How ridiculous the name they put may be, that does not change the fact.

When people ask for clarity, you don't just copy paste what you already said.

Either way, I am still convinced that this should be enough proof to explain why it is "Ultimate Anime Summer: New Beginnings". I am fine with removing that prefix from the updates section of the front page so long as we remove other prefixes as well.

Get me a Maintenance report about the recent content and I'll be on board with using Maintenance reports as further proof(or whatever you would call it). They never mention events and stuff like that in there, things could easily be modified and or simply not mentioned.

[1]The update wasn't mentioned at all in the post, not as "Ultimate Anime Summer", "Ultimate Anime Summer: New Beginnings", or "New Beginnings".Albeit, unlike the previous three cases, the content for Regeneration/New Beginnings was already in our pack files for a while before official release. I'm not sure if that's what they had in mind for not including it in the maintenance notes, but they probably just wanted to make the update a surprise as they didn't announce it anywhere else either other than ominous logos of something coming who knows when.

My point was, saying only part of the update's name or saying its full name won't change what its full name is. I see no reason why this doesn't already prove that it is Ultimate Anime Summer: New Beginnings.

New Beginnings is clearly bolded in the body of the patch notes. Ultimate Anime Summer is the giant 10 Week Even name that Nexon is hosting. There is no way in hell I (or anyone that matters) would associate "Ultimate Anime Summer" as part of the header for the current update. It should stay as "New Beginnings" and nothing more.

Neither of which change the fact that it is Ultimate Anime Summers: New Beginnings. (And Aces was also an "event", as is Ultimate Anime Summer.) There really is no arguing here. I don't like that they named it that way but that is their business, not mine. We need to use their names.

Nise's hostility stems from dealing with you and your attempts to justify your views (not trying to sounds insulting. just being blunt).

Bottom line is that the ultimate anime summer event is just that: an event. If culinary artist was released at the same time as the doki doki event, would it have been doki doki: culinary artist? nope. The anime summer event will eventually end, but the "new beginnings" revamp won't.

I agree there is ambiguity in NexonNA's naming conventions, but it is also true as both Mikaya and Yinato have stated it. Culinary Artist is an Ace Talent, and should have been named as the last entry in the Aces batch of updates (Aces: Culinary Artist). We are getting "New Beginnings" content as a part of our "Ultimate Anime Summer" event for 2014. For consistency of nomenclature across version, I think it is best to separate event names with actual content titles as best we can. This is not a valuable detail, and is certainly not worth this much effort in defense.

Advice (from Blargel)

I wasn't going to butt in on this discussion but since someone else already did, I guess I'll give some advice too. All of this is intended to help you communicate more effectively and avoid raising tempers.

Use your analytical mind to analyze your own posts before you submit them. Make sure your sentences make sense grammatically and are not overly long. Make sure your arguments are easy to follow. Avoid statements that don't really say anything. Make sure your sentences connect logically. Basically, do everything you can to be sure that your own posts are understood as they are intended.

At a more personal level, you should strive to understand why other people disagree if they do. To make an effective argument, instead of iterating your own beliefs over and over, listen to the opposition and find an inherent flaw in their reasoning. If someone finds a flaw (or thinks they found a flaw) in your own reasoning, don't deflect or ignore it. Address it or admit your mistake. When using outside sources to support your argument, double check the source to be sure you both remembered and understood it correctly. Avoid using words that have extremely positive or negative connotations. If you can't find a better word, look for a neutral phrase instead.

That sentence was kind of a mix of formal and casual, and a few too many ideas. I can see why its confusing. It would probably be easier to understand if I split the ideas into smaller, separate sentences:

People like things being either black or white.

My entire life, I've observed and now think most if not all norms are stupid.

Most norms are pointless restrictions we place on each other just so we never have to leave our comfort zone. (Of course things like don't murder are good norms, but most seem like society's version of OCD.)

Being uncomfortable is NOT bad, there are a lot of things more important than comfort.

We force each other to follow these norms, it feels oppressive and hypocritical.

I don't think it's a mix of formal/casual so much as I'm pretty sure that sentence is grammatically unparseable. I think if you remove the first "Like" and add a comma or so, then it makes more sense, but that first word makes it really unintelligible. It comes off more like an incomplete sentence. I'd also say that "polar opposites" is a really bad substitute for "black and white". Black and white is used to describe the lack of a spectrum ("no gray area"), not being at the opposite ends of one.

Yea, when speaking casually, particularly when speaking offline, people tend to start sentences with words like but or like. It's not that they're incomplete sentences, its still a complete thought. They're slang. The word like is short for it's like, just omitting the first word. If I was trying to be formal I wouldn't use the word like at the beginning of the sentence, but I was kind of trying to be formal but also casual, and it resulted in a mess apparently.

You're right, "polar opposites" and "black and white" are not interchangable but they can be a related issue. For example, masculinity and femininity. People create these ideas and bundle up being artistic, introverted, unintelligent, expressive, and unstable into femininity and scientific, extroverted, intelligent, inexpressive, and stable into masculinity. Guess what, these things have nothing to do with each other and have no business being associated with one another. Someone can be scientific, introverted, intelligent, expressive, and stable. We just like this idea of making things black and white, then saying you are not this way because that is the opposite of what you should be. To me, that says a lot about the state of society than an individual. I see this kind of thing everywhere. Maybe that's just because I might want to find it, that it might not always be there. I'm terrible at explaining things.

That has nothing to do with black and white, that's stereotyping. It's not even polar opposites. Polar opposites doesn't typically refer to supertypes like "masculine" and "feminine", also it expressedly refers to the speaker's opinion rather than presupposing the claim as a fact.

Black and white refers to a clear cut divide. Moral and immoral, typically. Where something is one or the other and there's no gray area (eg. people say murder is always bad, but then say war is okay; that's a gray area).

"Like, people like black and white, but I've spent my life finding it to be meaningless restrictions we place just to make things more comfortable for us, and then want everyone to conform to these norms."

Splitting it up would probably be a good move, but this is how it would be done in the spirit of your original utterance.

Advice (from NisePanda)

You're overanalyzing again. Just think of the situation directly. Apples are red. Crime is bad. Sharks are sort of cool. You don't need t write 3-4 sentences about any of those things. Marcus built a bridge. We don't need 3-4 sentences explaining what Marcus did, we just need to know that Marcus built a bridge. Whole point of wiki is to be clear and precise, so be clear and precise, write discussions like you would write a page on the wiki. "I don't like X because of Y." "I think X is the best solution because Y." "X is Y." "You could do X with Y."

Most importantly sometimes when X says Y is bad. Then Y is bad. Murder will never be good(an exaggerated example, but you get the point.) You don't have to explain some things any further because, well, Y is bad.

Making scenarios isn't any better, they're really long and I feel that you're only trying to drag on the discussion when it can be ended easily. You only make people repeat themselves over and over again, make clear questions, not analogies or hypothetical situations on what it is exactly someone wants. Because in most likely cases someone doesn't like something in your analogy and/or what-if situation and they will disagree with something in it.

This made me laugh, but sort of contradictory wording which is not helpful here. Your post is about conciseness, rather than preciseness. Precision would just incite Kapra to post more in order to cover every detail of the situation.

However, it's fair to bring up that conciseness is important. The basic principles are correct, understandable, concise, and useful (as in wanted by the typical reader). CUCU (coo-coo~!), yes, it's totally a new thing. =w=)b

EDIT: Oh I should mention this is more in relation to how one presents information. It's not always what you'd use in a conversation.

Curious

You seem to almost necessitate rigid and explicit definitions for the terminology we throw around here carelessly. Would you like me to write up a subpage for the policy that defines these terms as those of us with more empathetic experience (I really mean no offense here, sorry) interpret them?

If it would benefit you for me to do so, and if it would make these longwinded discussions smoother, I would gladly do so.

Despite the insults and hatred constantly hurled into your face I have to wonder if you still remain unaware just how many people ask me to ban you. I've even seen offsite commentary saying that you're the reason we don't have as many editors as we could. Now, I'm not telling you this to upset you but I want you to realize the reality of the situation. There is a pervasive issue here and I'm afraid saying that it's everyone else isn't going to fly.

I've spent the day reviewing your communications and I've realized the major issue here. You're not a bad editor, your arguments are fairly solid from your own frame of reference despite the unadmitted flipflopping on occasion, and you're not really breaking any rules or anything. The issue is that of communication ability, and that is specifically empathy. You regard everything on a very technical basis, a basis that most people don't care about. You have this propensity to communicate specifically but on definitions that are so thorough that they're unseen by others. This isn't a good thing, of course!! Communication is intended to convey your thoughts to the listeners, not to raise yourself above them by saying such things as "it's their fault if they don't understand." You are missing this secondary layer of implication and inference, emotions and empathy, and many other secondary cues. This is a layer that other people are using. They are able to assume a certain level of understanding between participants that you strive to define in order to be able to clearly understand a situation.

It isn't a bad way to think, I'm not trying to mock or judge you, but most people aren't capable of working with it. It's my job to facilitate an environment in which all parties can successfully discuss issues and come to real conclusions, and to also work together in a productive way. Though it's not right for Nise/Yinato et al to rag on you as much as they do, it is actually an expected response to this wall between you and other contributors. I don't want to be presumptive on why this wall exists but I have a good idea. Nonetheless, me be willing and capable, I want to help you break down this wall so that you can become a valued and respected contributor.

Oh, I'm sorry then for suggesting you were being sarcastic. I'm just so used to negative feedback particularly from this website, I guess I've kind of numbed down to it and convinced myself to just deal with it. I am surprised you took the time to analyze me, and most if not all of what you've concluded is probably true.

Throughout my life, I've learned to over-intellectualize things (intellectualize in the Psychological tense), which in turn makes it difficult for me to balance trying to be convincing and trying to be rational to those who do not try to do so as well. I find difficulty in dealing with the relational dimension, especially in text based communication. I want to change, but usually when I do attempt to, not necessarily from this website, people often ridicule the attempt more than the unfavorable state. Like people like polar opposites which I've spent my life finding to be meaningless restrictions we place down just to make things comfortable, wanting everyone to confirm to these norms. To me, this sounds very disturbing. Comfort is not everything and I think expression is more important, but people try to achieve expression by forcing comfort which means halting expression which is downright confusing. I want to change the way I think, but I also don't want to think like that, so I'm faced with reluctance to change as well. I also do not think it is right to force or even ask others to change they way they are, so I'm not entirely sure how to make the two compatible. And even the times I did try to change, I do not know how to. I have no guidelines to go by and to me, the first step is always defining the parameters.

I am willing to accept help if you are willing to offer. Do you have any advice for what I should do and possibly how?

Edit: And no, I was aware that there was negative feedback of me but I did not realize people were actually calling for banning me.

1) I feel like overanalyzing things and trying to ascertain some sort of really explicit definition for everything is exactly the act of tying yourself down and escaping the expression you claim to pursue.

2) I don't want you to change yourself as a person, and that's not anything someone can ask of you. However, I can ask you to change the way in which you communicate. Norms are created so that humans have a protocol by which they can interact, coexist, and work together. The norms in question (ie. not one's like having to be straight or whatever; rather just norms of actual communication, like conciseness) exist to facilitate peaceful interaction. Comfortability is actually very important. Even if you're challenging someone's opinion, even if you're arguing, you will generally want to do so in a way that makes the person feel comfortable - thereby not on edge, angry, spiteful, etc - so that they can clearly see your point of view and you can discuss the matter like mature adults. People use confrontation and emotional ploys for the express purpose of making people not see their argument rationally. So if your goal is in fact rationality, I would suggest approaching discussion in a more courteous manner, so that all parties can be rational. The goal of proper discussion is to really consider the other person, after all.

I don't really have a gameplan for you offhand, and I'm too busy to put one together for now; but if you want to look over your recent discussions and try to notate where you felt like someone wasn't understanding you, or where someone claimed you weren't understanding them, I can help you sieve through them.

I just have one question for now, how can someone stop overanalyzing? If you're overanalyzing and are trying to stop overanalyzing, you just end up overanalyzing overanalysis. To me it feels like asking someone to not think about elephants, the only way out I can think of stopping is to distract yourself and not deal with thinking about it, but if instead of thinking about elephants it is something important, then you just stop attempting to make progress. And I just realized I was probably overanalyzing while I was writing this.

I think that it's because you like things acutely defined. When you encounter a situation you seem to have to understand a lot about the situation, by eg. proposing hypotheticals. Your overanalysis comes from this sort of need. The one thing I really think you need to do is trusting your raw emotions a bit more.

At a subconscious level, you likely understand a situation already, but to verify its truthiness as it were, you analyze it to bring it into your conscious mind. This manifests in things like hypotheticals, devil's advocation, and so forth so as to bring about an all-encompassing understanding.

What you need to realize is that you don't need this. That feeling you had initially is enough. Generally, you can just trust it. Sometimes there will be mistakes, and then you can ask for clarification and fill that little bit with the missing information.* When you come to have a good understanding of the human experience, your gut will be correct more often, and you can come to be more comfortable interacting with others, because you begin to understand what makes people feel one way, or what it is that can mark different forms of expression like sarcasm and irony vs. direct speech; and you can learn when each is appropriate.

*Here is a point where you're currently erring a lot. Over time, you've encountered a lot of situations with gaps. However, instead of asking, you've tried to fill in the gaps with your logical analysis. Many of the times, you've filled this in with incorrect assumptions that still make sense, and have solidified these in your mind as relateable fact when it isn't. After doing so, you've probably forgotten what you've even done this for. Now, when you communicate based on these wrong foundations, people get upset, judge you, etc.

So what it comes down to is feeling. When you read something (that's communication, rather than say a wiki article), the intention is to evoke a certain feeling. You can't treat these words like they're written law, picking apart their technical meanings to identify the legality of the sentence. Because in the end, the person who wrote it didn't do that, they simply wanted to get a point across, to share a feeling of theirs with you, and that is what you need to focus on reading.

Regarding an Edit on the Elf page

I also want to point out that outside of Event/Gachapon armors, Royal Knight and Bhafel Slayer is the only available Heavy armor for Elves, which effectively limits most Elf players to those 2 choices without paying other players. Just saying.

My original point still stands, unless you want to list every armor for all three races on their page. Words like "most" and "some" do not substitute lists when you are describing differences between races. Low availability of armor does not change that.

Oh gee, then why do we even bother separating list pages by race. I mean, to list what elves/giants/humans can only wear. Ha, stupid, right?[1] In fact, why distinguish anything? Let's just must everything together and just list their names. Wait, that's simply a category page; hell, just delete lists pages.

By that logic, why don't we mention how Giants can not wear Human-only or Elf-only heavy armor on the giant page? The list at this point is large enough to not be considered exempts and saying elves can't wear anything but what elves can wear sounds weird.

„

Wow. The stupidity on this wiki. Maybe it's contagious. Did you get it from Infodude?

That would defeat the point of categorization. Ehh, at any rate, I feel that Elves, while having the mastery skill, still take rather drastic penalties to even be good with heavy armor, thus lacking the skill to wear it as effectively as human.

As frail as elves are, I'm not surprised that Heavy armor hinders them. I don't see the point of the removal. "There are armors that elves can wear" is not a good enough reason to remove it imo.

Looking back at the Elf edit history, I don't honestly agree with the removal. A better way would be to reword it. There isn't a big enough list to even include it first off, and secondly it doesn't even have to be listed when there's a convenient page for it. Honestly I just find it silly for it to be removed. Elves will always be hindered by heavy armor and will never equate to a human wearing heavy armors.

So you guys established the point of list pages is to list what armors different races can and cannot wear, not the race pages. nd you also established that it is clear elves have a disadvantage with wearing heavy armor, so mentioning their increased dex penalty should be sufficient. I just want all three pages to be consistent, and never use words like "some" or "most", you have to be specific. List all the heavy armor or don't.

The low availability of heavy armors for elves is obviously something devcat chose to do to make the race different, so it's at least as important on the elf page as the specific skill details. Rephrazing that line more might be a good idea, but there's nothing wrong with the word "most" being there.

It should be rephrased so that it's talking about availability rather than ability now that the lack of elven heavy armors isn't as absolute as it used to be.
"most heavy armors can't be equipped by elves" would be fine.

How about rather than listing out the names of all the armor Elves can wear, list the number of armors Elves can wear and say that only three of which (named) armors can be obtained outside of cash/trade/event methods? Along the lines of "Of the ten Heavy Armors Elves can wear, only [[Royal Knight Armor]] and [[Bhafel Slayer Set|Bhafel Slayer Guard]] can be obtained outside of events, player transactions, and cash methods."

I do not consider them jobless, we do not know their jobs yet. Closest of what we can describe as a job for Diva is Traveling Bard, perhaps, or Traveling Singer. We cannot associate Merlin with a job. We also cannot say what Professor J's job is, only that he is wearing what looks like a military uniform. "Druid", "Starlet", and probably "Vates" is not a job.

The definition you provided seems sufficient. "Druid" is a religion. "Starlet" is a social status. Would "Vates" be considered a job? I can kind of see how "Vates" might be a job title, like "Royal Alchemist", but the term "Vate" or "Vates" was never used that way. I don't see enough evidence to call "Vates" his job, I hope the other two would be obvious.

Mores should not be allowed to be called a Druid for his occupation, if you ask me.

Druid is not a priest, magician, or soothsayer. To be a druid is to be a part of that religion. You can be a priest within that religion, and being a priest would be your occupation, but not the title of your religion.

I could say I want to be an astronaut, that doesn't make wanting to be an astronaut my job. Perhaps student or apprentice. However, unlike the other two, we can label Starlet with a job at the moment, but "Starlet" would not be what we label a job title.

I am skilled cooking, that does not make me a Chef.

Edit: Yes, Druid is a religion. It is not limited to priests and healers. You may share practices with a priest like modern day church goers go to practice their Christianity, that does not mean that is their occupation.

So being a mage is an occupation but druid is not? Both terms can be interchangeable to some degree without losing meaning.

Stating is as a religion when Mabinogi uses in the terms as a class does not present a valid argument. Druid is used as a term for a class, or in this case, a talent. If you're associating with the religion, then you already lost the argument.

Starlet is fine as an occupation, which goes along the lines of being a starting/beginner actress or singer. Starlet herself could be referred to as a Soul Star instead if you really want to take a stab at Occupations.

Chef is not an occupation unless you make it an occupation. Chef is defined as someone skill at cooking. It's a general term. In fact, there are a lot of titles for Chefs.

A class or in Mabi's case, a Talent, is not a job. There are some exceptions, like when classes or talents are named after jobs, like knight.

She can be called a starlet, actress (where did it says she was an actress?), singer, or soul star. But only actress and singer would be actual jobs.

Exactly. Vate in Mabinogi's case it not used as an occupation's title, but as I explained in an earlier post in this thread, it could be one. But thus far, it hasn't been used as one and there is still room for the saga 2 to explain it in more detail.

To resolve the argument, these issues would need to be settled:

Has druid ever been used as a term of an occupation, where and how? Would using the terms Healer or Priest, or other job titles be more accurate?

Is Starlet the NPC is actress? It is established that she is a Singer and that can be accepted as her occupation.

How are the terms "Starlet" and "Soul Star" occupations, and not slang, while being more accurate than other terms like Singer.

Is Vate or Vates an occupation title? As previously said, this cannot be proven one way or the either yet.

In addition, to a more radical note, I would rather we keep the occupation on the Job entry of a NPC page's infobox, but only include their role in the map in map pages. NPCs that would do nothing in the map but show dialogue wouldn't have a roll, NPCs that give daily quests would give quests, NPCs that own shops would list their type of shop, etc. As specific as possible.

I don't think I'm getting to you if you are just going to spit out what you said earlier...You overshot the point about here and apparently lost sight what what I am trying to tell on how Mabinogi puts it and not what is based on. Congratulations! You literally just blew my mind, because now, it is full of fuck. I normally don't use the "big swears," but you have just earned the achievement and way to keep and open mind.

The sheer amount of stupidity of removing ambiguity and not leaving any mention is just soo....more open ended than it should be. There is no exact end every time. The wiki is a collaboration of information and ambiguity is fine since people will not list every freaking single thing. That is why ambiguity exists. I do not understand what the hell is wrong with ambiguity. I am done with this crap. You can do what ever you need to do to. I don't care. Druid's not a talent/job class? okay then, you're the boss.

Yes, we need to be as precise as possible, nothing should be open ended. Personally, I don't think listing "occupation" on map pages matters at all, mostly just on NPC pages. I would rather only features of the NPC be included in map pages.

Yes, I noticed that. I actually spent a few hours trying to figure out why that is. Other gems with nearly identical pages and data pages, like the Rose Quartz, doesn't react that way. And I can't figure out what is making some gems like Alexandrite act that way. In addition, pages without strings should go in the Category:Unreleased Content, I have no idea why those particular are going into the old category, Category:Upcoming Content. I assumed it was a wiki cacheing issue.

For Shield Mastery, thank you, must have missed that one somehow. I actually was checking Jennifer's rates after I read the thread, but we haven't lost 1 dur on an accessory yet. I normally don't get on live unless it's something I can test myself easily. As for Guard Cylinder's, I can try but I try to avoid touching weapon pages. If you want, you can start it and I'll adjust it later. Guard Cylinders are identical to cylinders, except they have no elemental boost, give bonuses of Guard Cylinder Mastery AND Shield Mastery (not sure if it is considered a Small, Medium, or Large Shield), and come with Magic Defense/Magic Protection. (Though upgrades are not defensive or offensive.)

Can you please clarify what Soluna meant with Heavy Stander in Mabidata? According to Dante here, he claims it is Transformation Heavy Stander, but here states that's not the case and has something to do with Monster Heavy Stander.

'''Warning:''' Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

„

Why is that? I believe it's the culprit for "Talent/Hero Talent Tables" a link instead of a transclusion, but it itself is not that long. Is it that the combination of previous templates are so large that the ones over the limit were excluded due to some total-template-size limit?

No, the limit restricting the page was the "Post‐expand include size". This is the size of templates and wikitext after being expanded when being parsed by the server. Also, even if it were to count against it, it's better to have consistent coding than to minify coding, especially while there is other unnecessary/irrelevant stuff on the page.

Adv PTJ

Hmm, I have no explanation but it seems to work differently than I suggested or it used to be. While we're on the subject, Edern had a part time job from high ranked dan lvls before they added the blacksmithing part time job, what happened to that?

Tested, Shooting Rush causes normal aggro, so if you Shooting Rush a group of skeleton lancers and archers, two archers and two lancers will aggro you. BUT, if you shooting rush a monster in defense, once in a hundred attempts, it will reset its aggro. Also, Bullet Storm on the other hand, aggros every monsters it hits.

Nope, not at all like Act 7, not that I've had too much experience with puppets. Shooting rush should only ever go into cooldown if its executed (it will be blacked out but go into cooldown at the end of the animation), and this is with KR lag from CA, so I doubt there would be a cooldown problem.

I'm not sure whether or not it is a glitch but nothing seems to cancel counter from these skills except the only one that actually triggers it.

Edit: Oh, and most of these tests were done on monsters, though Kenero showed me how different skills react in a pvp.

You can obtain a Zeder and a Training Bullet from an engineer NPC next to every tradepost in Uladh. Also, the girl in Shyllien sells Training Bullets (no gun). (None sell ordinary bullets as far as I know.) I don't think there's any other legit way to get guns other then production and gachapon UNLESS you make a new character in the gun talent but I'm not sure if that's a Zeder or a beginner version of the Zeder.

As far as I know, production mastery does not effect the new life skills, I'll look into this.

It should be identical to Mineralogy. Only differences I noticed so far (though I had more experience with engineering than magic craft) is:

Shyllien spots spawn everywhere, unlike in mineraology where its only ore deposits near the walls, that being said the maps are moreso full than odd-shaped hillwen maps where its mostly small areas with long walls.

Hillwen spot quality is determinable by the size of the ore (a small ore on floor 2 isn't as good as a large in floor 2, but I think a small in floor 2 is better than a medium in floor 1, not sure). But Shyllien seems to look different with each tier. I've only see two tiers so far because the rest are nearby dangerous monsters. One is the herbs, you'll see them on floor 1 (if other players don't gather it before you can), the other is a weird purple round mist on floor 2 and 3.

Also, Shyllien's first floor and lobby are merged, so the teleport NPC only takes you to two more floors, whereas the first floor of hillwen is separate from the lobby.

Exactly how big are Shyllien and Hillwen? The room we only see in gens isn't really huge (though for Hillwen that's just the lobby). Also, how dangerous are the monsters inside there, and are there any bandits looming around Hillwen still?

The rooms are a lot bigger, especially the hillwen ones. For example, you know how running around in Iria leaves a trail? Look at the Hillwen floor 2 map, not imagine that your trail is smaller than your marker on the map. There aren't any "bandits", but there are annoying monsters like small pink bunnies, larger purple bunnies, purple venus fly traps, purple yetis, emerald hyenas (ice hyena pretty much), emerald cows (ice cows), emerald shriekers, emerald golems (crystal golems), etc. And the better the ore spot, the more multiaggro in one spot. It is hell, you'll see what I mean in a few days.

I WANT to say how strong/weak they are but it's hard to because I'm afraid to touch the golems and yetis. . . And I haven't attempted Scathach in KR. I'll check if they have a trans entry next time I get in KR but I really doubt it, none of these monsters have new models.

Obstacles? In Hillwen, only on the first floor (the one with no enemies that everyone will be grinding at so you won't find any filled deposits). I don't remember for Shyllien, I'll try to check, but it takes forever to get there with such slow mounts. . .

Not the Imp dude? For Fighter it sells Bracer Knuckles, for Bard it sells Lyres, for Puppeteer it sells Jeweled Control Bars, and for Shapeshifting he has Moonlight Dream Catcher, but the Imp has nothing for Gunner?

Is it worth going to such great lengths to hunt for ingredients for the bullets? In terms of damage, no. BUT people will be hunting hundreds of them anyways just to make them for magic craft so you might as well use them. And nope, no commerce one.

Tir Chonaill, Dunbarton, and Tara has an Engineer NPC at the tradepost that has 90% repair rate and sells a 81% repair rate kit.

Port Cobh, Emain Macha, Bangor, and Taillteann do not have an Engineer at their trade post.

Hillwen Lobby has two NPCs:

One has 98% and sells 92% kits.

One has 92% an sells 81% kits.

I have not yet checked Shyllien or Belvast due to Continent Warp/MT times, I'll check if any of those have any repairers in a moment. Note that you can craft 92% kits from engineering too. And kits do not cost money to repair guns, only costs ingredients/money to craft/buy the kits, so not sure if you want to include 81% in the weapons template. But since there is an NPC with 92%, not just a kit, it should be included for sure.

There is no gun repair in shyllien or either region of belvast, so only new repair prices are 90%, 92%, and 98% for guns. There's a 81% kit and 92% kit but those don't cost a fee to repair. BUT there is two NPCs in shyllien with 98% magic weapon repair, up until now the highest has been 97%.

Other than sharing the icon and both being craftable, I don't see a similarity between the two. All the repair kits do is give you the option to repair guns for free from anywhere (one kit used per dur), not too practical imo, especially since shooting rush for example which is 8 attacks only consumes the dur of 1, whereas skills like somersault and pummel use up the dur of multiple. And nope, blacksmith reapirs do not work.

Because when you have something to change, you change it. And the overall result of the change is a new version. When you make two changes, you have 2 new versions, adding up to a grand total of 3 versions.

Ya, KR's final decision was the third version, which used bullets, only had one passive defense per skill, and slightly lowered damage (and elemental reforges disabled same update as second version but that's not necessarily skill related). JP got the final version of the skill from the start and so far the data suggests we'll be getting that version as well.

If a monster has lvl 3 heavy stander but no natural shield, guns will do full damage to the monster, taking protection into account of course.
The update made it so that is no longer true. Cross Buster triggers just heavy stander and the other attacks trigger just natural shield.